Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18712503›Full record

ArticleInvestigational new drugs2009

Application of population pharmacokinetic modeling in early clinical development of the anticancer agent E7820.

Ron J Keizer, Miren K Zamacona, Mendel Jansen, David Critchley, Jantien Wanders, Jos H Beijnen, Jan H M Schellens, Alwin D R Huitema

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Investigational new drugs, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ron J KeizerDepartment of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute/Slotervaart Hospital, Louwesweg 6, 1066 EC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ron.keizer@slz.nl
Miren K Zamacona
Mendel Jansen
David Critchley
Jantien Wanders
Jos H Beijnen
Jan H M Schellens
Alwin D R Huitema

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the population pharmacokinetics (PopPK) of the novel oral anti-cancer agent E7820. Both a non-linear mixed effects modeling analysis and a non-compartmental analysis (NCA) were performed and results were compared. Data were obtained from a phase I dose escalation study in patients with malignant solid tumors or lymphomas. E7820 was administered daily for 28 days, followed by a washout period of 7 days prior to the start of subsequent cycles. A one compartment model with linear elimination from the central compartment was shown to give adequate fit, while absorption was described using a turnover model. Final population parameter estimates of basic PK parameters obtained with the PopPK method were (RSE): clearance, 6.24 L/h (7.1%), volume of distribution, 66.0 L (8.5%), mean transit time to the absorption compartment, 0.638 h (6.5%). The intake of food prior to dose administration slowed absorption (2.8-fold, RSE 13%) and increased relative bioavailability of E7820 by 36% (RSE 14%), although the effect on C (max) and AUC was not significant. Comparison with the NCA approach showed approximately equal PK parameter estimates and food effect measures, although specific advantages of PopPK included efficiency in use of data and more appropriate assessment of variability.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAdministration, OralAdultAgedAntineoplastic AgentsFemaleFoodHumansIndolesMaleMiddle AgedSulfonamidesAntineoplastic AgentsIndolesN-(3-cyano-4-methyl-1H-indol-7-yl)-3-cyanobenzene-sulfonamideSulfonamides

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.